The current trend of acceptability of euthanasia serves to undermine moral predispositions to fight against the unnatural taking of life. Focus has been taken away from debates regarding the sacredness of life and has shifted towards a discussion on the right to choose. The freedom and right of an individual to choose is the central turning point. This shows that more important than the inviolability of life is the ability of persons to choose for him or herself the quality of life experienced. Gone then is the moral code lifting decisions regarding the continuation of life to standards of higher beings or lofty ideals.
Ownership has passed to individual persons in possession of life. What becomes immoral is not the taking of life through acts or omissions initiated by physicians or patients, rather it is the deprivation from a patient of the right to decide for him or herself the extent to which he or she experiences pain. More than reason, there is compassion in such a sentiment and it promotes the consideration of the patient’s state of suffering above restrictions of guidelines and rules. Allen et al. have served to broaden the view regarding acceptable attitudes towards euthanasia.
Because of the arguments and rationalization used and presented, acceptance of euthanasia has become more definitively an act of mercy. It is still a gray area though whether or not absent express consent euthanasia is still acceptable. The distinction between the right of the patient and the wishes of his or her relatives remains an area of debate and hot contestation. Consider the case of the fairly recent Florida controversy regarding euthanasia. The Case of Terri Schindler Schiavo In the particular case of Terri Schindler Schiavo there was no life-support machine attached to her body (Oransky, 2003).
There was simply a feeding tube inserted in order that she might be given food and water. Terri Schiavo was married to Michael Schiavo to whom guardianship of Terri was given (Oransky, 2003). At the time of Terri’s hospitalization her parents and direct family were also around and although they wished to obtain guardianship over Terri the same was not awarded them. The controversy stemmed from this basic argument. Because Michael held guardianship, the decision regarding the continuation of treatment was left to him.
Terri had been diagnosed by several doctors as being in a persistent vegetative state (Oransky, 2003). Some evidence surfaced showing that Terri was still responsive during several instances to commands to open her eyes, to the sounds of her parent’s voices and to simple motor tasks (Oransky, 2003). This caused some fifteen physicians to rebut the diagnosis that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. However, Michael expressed the desire to terminate medical treatment being given to Terri despite the conflict in diagnosis of Terri’s state.
He insisted that Terri had explicitly communicated to him verbally her desire not to be sustained on life-prolonging mechanisms (Oransky, 2003). Terri’s parents disagreed and argued that Terri had made no such thing known. The involvement of religious organizations and anti-abortion movements publicized and politicized the situation. This led to the on-and-off permission to stop Terri’s feeding tube sustenance. In the end, Michael Schiavo won out and in 2005 Terri Schiavo died after the discontinuation of her medical care (Cahill, 2005).
This particular case reflects the issue of cases wherein the expressed will of the patient cannot be affirmed. There are numerous cases wherein patients are under physical states which render them incapable of speaking up for themselves. This is the case with coma patients or patients diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. These patients may also be in pain or they could be inflicting tremendous burden upon their relatives because of the medical and healthcare expenses necessary to meet their needs.
What then should be the perspective on euthanasia in cases such as these? Since the will of the patient cannot be ascertained, the community is left to ask the guardians of such patients. In cases wherein the guardians and relatives have no disagreement as to the course of action, there are few members of society who would put up protest. However, in the case wherein the relatives find themselves in disagreement with one another, controversies such as the one caused by the Terri Schiavo case may result.
Although Michael Schiavo’s testimony won out in the end, the events that transpired served to place questions on whether society in general is ready to accept that instances of euthanasia are already acceptable. The article by Allen et al. revealed that the patient’s expressed will is sovereign and that given such an expression, persons will find that they are in no place to protest against euthanasia. However, in the case of Terri Schiavo, the expressed will of Terri was put in question even though it was attested to by her own husband. The role of guardian is thus more than a legal matter.
The authority which people will respect in making the decision for a patient incapable of assenting or dissenting rests on actual authorities in their own personal sphere of social connections. Although a spouse is considered an authority in the life of an individual, a parent is more aptly seen as the beneficent protector of the patient. It may require a consensus between these two spheres of influence for the public to accept that the decision of the guardian regarding euthanasia is truly a reflection of the will of the patient him or herself.